Tag Archives: aiding and abetting

18 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – ATM Azharul Islam and Mir Qasem Ali Pre-Trial Proceedings

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Pre-trial proceedings against ATM Azharul Islam
  2. Pre-trial proceedings against Mir Qasem Ali 

Today in the pre-trial proceedings against ATM Azharul Islam the Tribunal was scheduled to hear arguments regarding the framing of charges against the Defendant. However, the Defense filed two applications: one for adjournment and another requesting privileged communication with the Defendant. The Defense argued that they received numerous documents from the Prosecution and had not had sufficient time to examine them. Additionally they argued they needed additional time to prepare for the hearing on the charge matter and to consult with their client. The Prosecution opposed the applications, arguing that privileged communication is not appropriate at this stage of trial. After hearing both sides the Tribunal granted both applications and set 24 August for privileged communication between ATM Azharul Islam and his two defense attorneys from 10 am to 1 pm. The Proceedings were then adjourned until 29 August 2013.

The Tribunal then turned to pre-trial proceedings against Mir Qasem Ali in which it heard the Defense’s arguments for dismissal of the proposed formal charges against the Defendant. Continue reading →

1 August 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – AKM Yusuf Charge Framing Order

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

1. Chief Prosecutor vs. AKM Yusuf

The Tribunal formally read out its Charge Framing Order against the accused A.K.M Yusuf.

Background of the accused
AKM Yusuf, who is now 87 years old, was an active member of Jamiate-Talabee-e-Arabia during his student life and joined Jamaat-e-Islami in 1952. In 1957 he became the Chief of Jamaat’s Khulna Division, prior to becoming elected as a Member of National Assembly in 1962. He was then nominated as the Provincial Joint Secretary of Jamaat-e-Islami in 1969 and acted as the Deputy Amir of then East Pakistan Jamaat-e-Islam in the year 1971.

It is alleged that Yusuf was the Chairman of the Peace Committee of greater Khulna and formed Razakar forces in the sub-division, police station, and local union level in greater Khulna district. He was previously prosecuted and convicted under the Collaborators Order of 1972, soon after Bangladesh’s victory over Pakistani forces. However he was released following an amnesty issued by the government.

Procedural History & the Charge Framing Order
The Chief Prosecutor submitted the Formal Charge against AKM Yusuf on 28 April 2013, relying on the Investigation Report of the Investigation Agency. Tribunal 1 took cognizance of the offences on 12 May 2013 after finding a prima facie case against him and issued a warrant for his arrest. The Accused was arrested on 14 May 2013 and has been in custody since then. The case was transferred to Tribunal 2. Upon hearing the proposed charges read out by Prosecutor Mr Rishikesh Saha on 14 July 2013 and the Defense’s response on 24 July 2013, the Tribunal fixed today to issue the Charge Framing Order. The Chairman of Tribunal 2 read out the Charge Framing on behalf of the bench. The Judges stated that a previous sentence under the Collaborators Order of 1972 and the amnesty granted for convictions of such offences does not bar the Accused’s trial for the commission of Crimes Against Humanity or Genocide. They framed 13 Charges against AKM Yusuf, alleging actual commission, complicity and superior responsibility for Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide.

The full Charge Framing Order can be read here: AKM Yusuf Charge Framing Order

  • Charge-1: Abetting and substantially contributing to Persecution as a Crime Against Humanity for looting and burning 400 shops and houses at Morleganj. Charged under Section 3(2)(a)(g) of the ICT Act.
  • Charge-2: Abetting and substantially contributing to Genocide, or in the alternative Persecution as a Crime Against Humanity for the torture and killing of 50-60 civilians in the Hindu community of Ranjitpur village. Charged under Section 3(2)(c)(i)(h) and Section 3(2)(a)(g)of the ICT Act.
  • Charge-3: Abetting and substantially contributing to Genocide, or in the alternative,  Persecution as a Crime Against Humanity at Morelganj Bazar locality. Charged under Section 3(2)(c)(i)(h) and Section 3(2)(a)(g)of the ICT Act.
  • Charge-4: Abetting and substantially contributing to Genocide, or in the alternative, Persecution as a Crime Against Humanity for ordering Razakars to kill 600-700 Hindu civilians in Dakra village of Rampal, Bagherhat. Charged under Section 3(2)(c)(i)(h) and Section 3(2)(a)(g)of the ICT Act.
  • Charge-5: Abetting and substantially contributing to Genocide, or in the alternative, Persecution as a Crime Against Humanity at Chulkuthi Bazar. Charged under Section 3(2)(c)(i)(h) and Section 3(2)(a)(g)of the ICT Act.
  • Charge-6:  Abetting and substantially encouraging Razakars to commit Genocide, or in the alternative, Murder as a Crime Against Humanity for the abduction, detention, torture and killing of civilians at Vasha Bazar under Kachua Police Station. Charged under Section 3(2)(c)(i)(h) and Section 3(2)(a)(g)of the ICT Act.
  • Charge-7: Abetting and substantially encouraging Razakars to commit Genocide, or in the alternative, Murder as a Crime Against Humanity for the abduction, detention, torture and killing of 40 Hindu civilians at Shakarikathi Bazar under Kachua Police Station. Charged under Section 3(2)(c)(i)(h) and Section 3(2)(a)(g)of the ICT Act.
  • Charge-8: Abetting and substantially encouraging Razakars to commit Genocide, or in the alternative, Murder as a Crime Against Humanity for the abduction, detention, torture and killing of 40 Hindu civilians at Shakarikathi Bazar. Charged under Section 3(2)(c)(i)(h) and Section 3(2)(a)(g)of the ICT Act.
  • Charge-9: Abetting and substantially contributing to Murder as a Crime Against Humanity for the killing of Abu Bakar Siddique at Barukhali Razakar camp. Charged under Section 3(2)(a)(g) of the ICT Act.
  • Charge-10: Abetting and substantially contributing to Murder as a Crime Against Humanity for the murder of three unarmed freedom fighters at Raenda Bazar. Charged under Section 3(2)(a)(g) of the ICT Act.
  • Charge-11: Abetting and substantially contributing to Murder as a Crime Against Humanity of two unarmed freedom fighters at Tafalbari Bazar. Charged under Section 3(2)(a)(g) of the ICT Act.
  • Charge-12: Abetting the Murder of Dr Majid as a Crime Against Humanity at Morelganj Bazar. Charged under Section 3(2)(a)(g) of the ICT Act.
  • Charge-13: Participating in and abetting the Murder of Abdus Salam as a Crime Against Humanity at Raenda Bazar. Charged under Section 3(2)(a)(g) of the ICT Act.

All the above counts contain charges under both Section 4(1) and 4(2) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1972, with exception to Charge-1 that contains charge under Section 4(1) only.

The Tribunal also rejected AKM Yusuf’s bail application, requiring him to be in jail custody during the trial. The trial is scheduled to commence on 5 September 2013 when the Prosecution will place its opening statement.

The full Charge Framing Order can be read here: AKM Yusuf Charge Framing Order

25 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – ATM Azharul Islam Cognizance of Charges, Mir Qasem Ali Defense Applications

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Pre-trial Proceedings against ATM Azharul Islam
  2. Pre-trial Proceedings against Mir Qasem Ali

Today in pre-trial proceedings against suspect ATM Azharul Islam the Prosecution submitted the Formal Charge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order taking cognizance of the Formal Charge and numbered the case as ICT BD Case No 5 of 2013. The Tribunal also directed the Prosecution to supply the Defense with all of the documents on which the Prosecution intends to rely, as well as the full list of proposed witnesses by the end of the day. They scheduled 18 August for hearing arguments regarding framing of the charges.

The Tribunal also heard an application filed by Alim’s Defense counsel requesting medically appropriate transportation of the suspect to and from the Tribunal. The Defense submitted that the ATM Azharul Islam suffers from back pain but is transported by prison van. The Prosecution objected saying that if such accommodation was made available to all it would create difficulties for the jail authorities due to the shortage of health friendly vehicles. The Tribunal passed an order directing the jail authority to provide ATM Azharul Islam health friendly vehicle if such vehicle is available to the prison authority.

In the pre-trial proceedings against suspect Mir Qasem Ali the Tribunal heard a Defense application seeking adjournment. The Defense submitted that they need privileged communication with their client Mir Qasem Ali. The Defense also requested legible copies of some Prosecution documents. The Tribunal rejected the request for adjournment but scheduled 28 July and 1 August from 10 am to 1 pm for privileged communication between the Defense and their client. They also directed the Prosecution to supply legible copies of the concerned documents if possible. They then heard the Prosecution’s submissions regarding the proposed charges against Ali.

The Prosecution submitted that until 6 November 1971, Mir Qasem Ali was the secretary of the Islami Chhatra Shangho Chittagong division. Between 6 November and 16 December 1971 they claimed that the Accused was also the general secretary of the Provincial Committee of the Islami Chhatra Shangho. They alleged that Mir Qasem was ‘Al-Badr high command.’ Most of the crimes allegedly committed under the leadership of Qasem Ali of took place at Dalim Hotel. The Prosecution briefly read out the 14 charges proposed against Mir Qasem Ali and stated that they had submitted the investigation report, a book titled ‘Muktijudder Potovumi’ vol- 1 and 2, witness statements, map of the place of occurrence, photos, and CDs in support of the charges. The charges are proposed under sections 3(2)(a), 3(2)(g), and 3(2)(h), indicating allegations of crimes against humanity; attempt, abetment or conspiracy; and complicity. The proposed charges are also framed indicating sections 4(1) and 4(2) as the relevant modes of liability, encompassing joint criminal liability and command responsibility respectively. Among the 14 charges proposed, charges 11 and 12 are for murder while the rest are for confinement, abduction, torture and other inhumane acts.

4 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Defense Closing Arguments and Prosecution Reply

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid

The Defense  completed their closing arguments before Tribunal 2 in the case of Mujahid,  discussing the evidentiary issues and the required elements for liability under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE).

The Required Mental State for Liability Under Joint Criminal Enterprise
The Defense continued their arguments from the previous day and addressed the required mental state, or mens rea, for liability under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE). Referring to paragraph 228 of the Tadic (Appeals Judgment) the Defense Imran submitted that the Prosecution has failed to prove the requisite mental state for liability under JCE as they have presented no evidence to establish that Mujahid intended to take part in a common plan or design with any member of Al-Badr or othered armed group for the purpose of committing a crime. The Defense argued that there is no evidence on record showing that Mujahid even had knowledge of an alleged common plan or design. Referring to the allegation that the accused said “usko hotao” (take him away) to his men, referring to a detainee, the Defense argued that these mere words do not prove the mental state of intent and knowledge required for JCE-1, as that type of JCE requires material participation by the Accused. Continue reading →

3 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid

Today the Defense continued their closing arguments in the case of Chief Prosecutor vs. Mujahid. They completed their arguments regarding the requirement of effective control by the Accused in order establish liability under Command Responsibility. They also emphasized doubt pertaining to particular charges due to inconsistent witness testimony. The Defense argued that the required mens rea, or mental state, has not been proven in the instant case. Finally the Defense submitted arguments regarding the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) under international law.  Continue reading →